snark: a (well-deserved) attitude of mocking irreverence and sarcasm

February 28, 2019

I'm a proud progressive. I'm a member of Progressive Salem. I enjoy hearing City Councilor Tom Andersen speak. And I like the food at the Marco Polo restaurant a lot.

So today it was great to mix those pleasures together and listen to Andersen talk about the past, present, and future of local progressivism at the first Progressive Salem Power Lunch meeting while munching on a tasty Marco Polo buffet meal.

If you're a conservative wondering if I'm going to share any inside political secrets, I'm sorry to disappoint you. But I hope you'll read this blog post anyway.

Andersen did refer several times to "Trumpism's emotional illogic." However, he also stressed the need for elected officials of all political persuasions to work together on making Salem a better place.

I heartily agreed with his call to make "livability, livability, livability" our mantra, rather than "jobs, jobs, jobs."

Jobs, after all, are a means to an end: livability. And that end will draw in more businesses and jobs, since livability is a key factor in why a company decides to locate in one city rather than another. Chasing warehouse jobs, such as those to be offered by an Amazon distribution center, shouldn't be our highest goal.

Andersen is a proponent of giving City Council members a monthly stipend, since currently they are unpaid. This restricts the ability of people to seek to become a city councilor. He noted that 28% of Salem residents are non-Caucasian, 18% are below the poverty line, and the average household income here is $49,000.

So a stipend would make it more likely that the City Council reflects the diversity of Salem. Currently, it doesn't. The City Council has rejected the stipend idea on a 7-2 vote. Likely Andersen will keep pushing it, since it seems like a desirable thing to do.

He was the lone Progressive Salem-backed councilor when elected in 2014. As he put it, "organized people beat organized money." That formula has been successful ever since, with progressives now being a 6-3 majority on the City Council following the election of Cara Kaser, Sally Cook, Matt Ausec, Chris Hoy, and Jackie Leung.

What a difference five years makes. Elections matter.

Running unopposed for re-election in 2018, Andersen joked that he was disappointed to only get 99% of the vote. Someone did write in the name of his wife, Jessica Maxwell. It could have been Andersen himself, though,

He talked about his disappointment at not being able to have the streetlight fee made more equitable. Currently a homeowner pays $2.80 a month, and Walmart (along with other businesses) pays $13.50 a month. When Andersen suggested doubling that latter fee to $27 a month, he was accused of being anti-business.

Pretty clearly he isn't. Andersen spoke about the generally good job SEDCOR (Strategic Economic Development Corporation) is doing locally. He said that 85% of their money/time is spent on retaining and strengthening homegrown businesses.

Given the new progressive majority on the City Council, developers appear to be keeping this political reality in mind, sometimes asking themselves, "Do we want to bring our project to the Council?" This is a good thing, as it encourages dialogue and cooperation with people affected by a proposed development.

One example is a residential development on Wiltsey Road in Jackie Leung's ward that now is going to save more white oaks than was originally planned after Leung asked to have the project reviewed by the City Council rather than being rubber-stamped on the "Consent Calendar."

Perhaps because the developer was aware that the City Council rejected a controversial relocation of Costco, Andersen said that Mountain West has agreed to make some changes to their development that the Heritage School is pleased with. So a willingness to compromise headed off a contentious hearing before the City Council.

Likely this wouldn't have happened if progressives weren't a 6-3 majority on the Council. Here's some other accomplishments during Andersen's first term as a councilor that he mentioned in his talk today.

During a Q & A period following his talk, Andersen said that progress is being made on homelessness, though much more remains to be done. Eighty-three of the 100 homeless people identified as most in need of help are being housed. Other measures are being implemented, such as providing a place for the homeless to store their belongings.

He noted that the "engine" driving the homeless problem is income/wealth inequality -- which obviously is impossible to solve at the local level.

Regarding the Salem River Crossing or Third Bridge, Andersen said this was a regional problem that tried to be solved locally (meaning, Salem residents were going to be expected to pay most of the bill for a half billion dollar regional bridge). Now it's time for proponents and opponents of the Third Bridge to move forward together on better ways to deal with transportation problems in our area.

Since the books in the Salem Library will need to be removed when seismic retrofitting and other renovations begin, someone in the audience suggested that the old Book Bin building on Lancaster Drive be used as a temporary library -- which could remain as a branch library.

Lastly, the Progressive Salem lunch meeting ended with someone thanking Councilor Andersen for the countless (almost) hours he puts in on public service.

"There's no way I'd do this for free," the person said. Me neither, I thought.

February 12, 2019

Anyone who doubts that the City Council did the right thing by killing the Third Bridge on a 6-3 vote last night should spend 10 minutes and watch Councilor Tom Andersen's eloquent explanation of why the Salem River Crossing project deserved to die. This video starts (hopefully) at the beginning of Andersen's remarks.

He points out that the official bridge reports show that a Third Bridge wouldn't reduce congestion, would be environmentally unsound, would displace many homes and businesses, likely wouldn't stand up in a major earthquake, would require tolling on both the current bridges and new bridge, and would suck about half a billion dollars out of taxpayer pockets.

So who has been pushing for the Third Bridge? Andersen poses this question yet leaves it unanswered. Well, the answer is... mostly special interests. Realtors. Builders. Pave-it-over advocates. Chamber of Commerce boosters. Sure, many people testified in favor of building the bridge last night.

But we need to remember that six of the nine members of the City Council were elected after making campaign promises to oppose a Third Bridge. So most people in Salem agree with killing this wasteful, ineffective, unneeded project.

Last night was a victory of the general public interest over special interests. Many thanks to Councilors Tom Andersen, Cara Kaser, Sally Cook, Chris Hoy, Jackie Leung, and Matt Ausec for doing the right thing.

November 26, 2018

Observing via CCTV the Salem City Council debate tonight whether to move ahead with the Salem River Crossing, or Third Bridge, felt like I was watching a movie where you know the bad guy is going to be killed at some point, but you know that isn't going to happen until a lot of drama and close calls have built up the suspense.

Like I said yesterday in "Jim Lewis dreams the impossible Third Bridge dream," it was pretty much a foregone conclusion that Lewis' motion to have City staff respond to issues raised in a legal setback that remanded (sent back) the Council's 2016 approval of a new bridge was going to fail 5-4.

After all, the five progressive councilors are on record as opposing what I like to call the Billion Dollar Boondoggle. There's no way they were going to break their campaign promises and vote to move forward with the Salem River Crossing project.

(Come January, their numbers will grow to six, when Jackie Leung replaces Steve McCoid on the City Council.)

What I wasn't sure about was whether the strategy of the No 3rd Bridge Five would be to give the Third Bridge the final death that it deserves at this meeting, or whether the death throes of the bridge would be strung out. It turned out to be the latter, since a substitute motion by Tom Andersen was approved after Lewis' motion failed.

Andersen's motion calls for the City Council to hold a work session on the Salem River Crossing in January 2019. Then the consensus seemed to be that either a vote on the legal remand would happen at the next Council meeting, or perhaps in February.

This seems to be a smart move.

If the five progressives had killed the bridge project tonight, that would have looked a lot like a football team running up the score in the fourth quarter when they were already way ahead. Bad form. Tonight lots of people testified in favor of a Third Bridge. Emotions ran high.

So what Tom Andersen and Cara Kaser talked about was having a work session to review all of the materials related to the Salem River Crossing prior to voting whether to address the issues in the remand.

If the City Council votes against addressing those issues, the Third Bridge apparently will be dead -- Lewis said that if the City of Salem doesn't handle the remand issue by September 2019, the project will be shut down, since a draft Environmental Impact Statement needed to move the project forward requires that all approvals be obtained by that time.

(I'm pretty sure the date was September 2019. It might be earlier.)

The January work session will give both supporters and opponents of the Salem River Crossing on the City Council a forum to put forth their best arguments to either keep the project alive, or kill it.

My bet is that it will end up being killed, since opponents have by far the better arguments.

As Kaser pointed out tonight, likely there is a need for another bridge across the Willamette. However, the current Third Bridge plan is for a very expensive regional bridge aimed largely at speeding traffic through Salem to Portland, the coast, and such, rather than a local bridge aimed at reducing rush hour congestion between West Salem and downtown.

And Kaser also observed that Salem residents would be expected to foot most of the bill for a Third Bridge, even though it would be a regional bridge, not a local bridge.

Lewis seemed to see the handwriting on the wall after his motion failed.

Mayor Bennett did his best to put a positive spin on the approval of Andersen's substitute motion, but as the saying goes, this was just putting lipstick on a pig. The No 3rd Bridge Five, who are soon to become the No 3rd Bridge Six, have the power on the City Council.

They will use the January work session to put forward some excellent reasons why the Salem River Crossing project should be killed. Then, at a subsequent City Council meeting, almost certainly it will be.

Lastly, I believe it was Tom Andersen who reminded his fellow city councilors of what happened in December 2016, when five conservative members of the City Council voted to more the project forward by approving an Urban Growth Boundary expansion the month before three newly elected progressives were going to join the Council.

Tonight five clueless members of the Salem City Council voted to move ahead with the unneeded, unwanted, and unpaid-for Third Bridge, a.k.a. the Salem River Crossing.

...Now, one would think that this City Council meeting would be a joyous occasion for supporters of the Salem River Crossing. It marked a step forward for the Third Bridge. Yet exactly nobody spoke in favor of it at the public hearing (which wasn't very public, because nobody other than city councilors could speak during it).

I saw downcast eyes and morose expressions from the Billion Dollar Boondoggle Five.

City Manager Steve Powers also didn't look very happy, perhaps because I suspect he agrees with much, if not all, of what Councilor Tom Andersen said in his animated six minute explanation of why he was voting NO on the Urban Growth Boundary expansion needed to accommodate the Salem River Crossing bridgeheads.

Below you'll find a video of Andersen's remarks. I urge you to watch it. This was a great example of the proverbial speaking truth to power.

I especially liked his oh-so-true observation that the City Council was rushing to get a vote on the UGB expansion before the end of the year because three newly elected city councilors who are against the Third Bridge, and said so in their campaigns, will take office in 2017.

So the vote tonight was a last gasp attempt by the Chamber of Commerce-backed councilors -- Bennett, McCoid, Nanke, Lewis, Bednarz -- to kiss up to the Powers That Be in this town. They used special interest money to get elected, and they paid back those special interests with their "yes" votes for the Billion Dollar Boondoggle.

April 25, 2018

So there really wasn't anything all that unusual in Tom Andersen's 5-minute CCTV video where he asks voters to support his re-election to the Salem City Council, even though he is running unopposed.

But as I watched the video, where Andersen talks about his various accomplishments during his first four-years as a city councilor, I kept thinking, I wish he'd give more credit to those who set the stage for those accomplishments.

Of course, it is almost a given that politicians are going to wring every drop of credit they can from the wet towel of something positive happening during their term of office. I'm realistic enough to know that this is never going to change.

However, I'm also idealistic enough to wish that politicians would do a better job of thanking the citizens who, almost always, laid the ground work for a vote that put a needed policy into motion.

So below are my annotations to Tom Andersen's campaign video. Again, I'm not taking issue with anything Andersen said. I just feel a need to provide some context to his list of accomplishments.

I realize that five minutes isn't a whole lot of time, and Andersen needed to be succinct. But here and there I feel that he could have given some credit where credit is due, such as by saying briefly things such as, "Thanks to the hard work of ______, I was able to introduce a motion to do _______."

Now, Councilor Andersen does mention "citizens" in his opening remarks. After that, though, it is basically all about him. Here's a broader view of the accomplishments he mentions.

Inclusive City resolution. Andersen did introduce this resolution in February 2017. But as I noted in "Citizens strongly support Salem "Inclusive City" resolution. Conservative city councilors not so much," the vote on this resolution was preceded by passionate testimony from about 43 citizens. That outpouring of support provided the emotional backdrop for the vote. As I said in the blog post:

Last night the conservative members of the City Council had to go along with the unstoppable force of progressive public opinion, as manifested by the 43 outspoken people who testified during the public comment period.

Climate Action Plan. Much, if not most, of the credit for getting Climate Action into the City of Salem's strategic planning initiative goes to Linda Wallmark and others involved with 350 Salem OR, the local branch of the national 350.org movement. Andersen has been very supportive of a local greenhouse gas inventory and associated Climate Action efforts, but others paved the way for this, as I noted in "Salem moves closer to a Climate Action Plan."

Fortunately, today I learned that Salem is making good progress on having a citywide Climate Action Plan -- thanks to the efforts of our local 350.org chapter, 350 Salem OR, and supportive city councilors such as Tom Andersen, Cara Kaser, Sally Cook, Chris Hoy, and Matt Ausec.

Police Facility bond measure. Andersen said that he supported the second-try $63 million bond measure for a new police facility, but he didn't mention that he also supported the original $82 million bond measure that was rejected by voters. I led the fight against that over-priced proposal, so I'm well aware that it was a lonely battle -- since every city councilor endorsed the $82 million bond measure, and my Salem Community Vision colleagues were my main support.

Thus Andersen's statement that he helped reduce the price tag to $63 million is true only because I, along with Salem voters, had the good sense to reject the $82 million bond measure that Andersen supported before he got on board with the second-try bond measure. For more info on this, see my blog post, "How citizen activism produced a much better Salem Police Facility plan."

Third Bridge. Councilor Andersen has been a steadfast opponent of a Third Bridge across the Willamette River. But as I noted in "Salem City Council votes 5-4 against Third Bridge," it took four other votes to stop what I like to call the Billion Dollar Boondoggle. Credit for electing those anti-bridge councilors goes to Progressive Salem and the councilors themselves: Cara Kaser, Sally Cook, Chris Hoy, and Matt Ausec.

Also, Jim Scheppke and other citizen activists have worked tirelessly against a Third Bridge, facing long odds. Their legal win at the Land Use Board of Appeals made possible a related accomplishment cited by Andersen, formation of a Traffic Congestion Task Force aimed at reducing rush-hour problems without a new bridge, as noted in my "City Council plans to reduce traffic congestion without a Third Bridge."

It seems clear that this is how the Third Bridge will begin to die after opponents were successful in getting the Land Use Board of Appeals to remand approval of an Urban Growth Boundary expansion needed for the bridge back to the City Council. In other words, that expansion was negated, and the City of Salem basically needs to start over.

Sit-Lie ordinance defeated. I didn't follow this proposal very closely, but my impression was that Councilor Chris Hoy took the lead in opposing this effort to prevent people (meaning, homeless people) from sitting or lying down on a sidewalk between 7 am and 9 pm. A Statesman Journal story mentions Hoy's statement prior to City Council deliberations on this issue: ""I have rarely seen a positive outcome in my almost 29-year law enforcement career when we criminalize the human condition."

Ouster of Councilor Daniel Benjamin. The City Council voted unanimously to censure Daniel Benjamin after he shared a Facebook video showing Black Lives Matter protesters being rammed by cars. So Andersen didn't play a particular role in this, which occurred at a City Council meeting where citizens testified for two hours about the need to stand up against racism and bigotry.

So the City Council's censuring of Daniel Benjamin, and the acceptance of his resignation, wasn't the Big Story last night. This happened at the beginning of the meeting and was marked by a dismaying degree of self-congratulatory excess from the Mayor and seven remaining councilors.

Each member of the City Council had to make a mini-speech about how intolerance won't be tolerated in this town; how disturbed they were by Benjamin's actions; how Salem isn't the sort of place where racism can take root.

When motions were made to censure Benjamin and accept his resignation, every city councilor frantically waved a hand in the air to indicate how badly they wanted to second it. Understand: there wasn't anything wrong with this display of political self-righteousness. It just struck me as an awkward attempt, aimed in part at the cameras from Portland television stations in the back of the room, to paint Salem as a town where These Sorts of Things Just Don't Happen, Aside from This One Time.

After which, the dozens of people basically replied, No, let me tell you how it really is.

Bottom line: it takes a village, as the saying goes, to produce City Council accomplishments in this town. There's nothing wrong with city councilors taking credit for their votes and introduction of motions to do this or that.

I'm just saying that rarely, if ever, does the Salem City Council produce something praiseworthy without a heck of a lot of preparatory work by citizens.

November 14, 2017

And so it came to pass that there was cause for much rejoicing at last night's City Council meeting, for the Wicked Third Bridge (of both East and West, since it would have connected these two sides of Salem) almost certainly was put to death.

Not by having a house dropped on it, or by being splashed with water, which would indeed be a perplexing way for a bridge to die, but by the City Council approving a motion to establish a committee that will examine ways to reduce traffic congestion around the two existing bridges without building a new Third Bridge.

But if the traffic congestion Task Force is approved at the November 13 meeting, and almost certainly it will be, this will set in motion forces that will make it very difficult, if not impossible, to bring the Third Bridge back to life anytime soon,

After all, if other ways to relieve rush hour congestion can be implemented more quickly and at a lower cost than a new bridge, why build the half-billion-dollar Salem River Crossing? And supporters of a Third Bridge won't be able to oppose the work of the Task Force, since their big complaint has been rush hour congestion.

They've been crying Build It Now! Well, the City Council is about to take steps to deal with rush hour congestion now. Just without building a new bridge.

But note that I said the death of the bridge was cause for much rejoicing, not that such actually took place.

As you can see in the You Tube video I made of Mayor Chuck Bennett's and Councilor Tom Andersen's remarks at the City Council meeting, neither was dancing with joy -- though Andersen comes closest to expressing his inner Munchkin.

(Of course, Bennett has been a big supporter of building a new bridge, so I didn't expect him to be celebrating even though he made the motion to establish the Task Force.)

Watching the City Council meeting on my laptop via the CCTV feed, I had the feeling that this was one of those times where a lot is not being said, even though many words were spoken.

My suspicion is that the Third Bridge supporters on the Council still hold out hope that future elections will change the composition of the nine-member City Council (which now has five progressives, all opposed to a Third Bridge) and the bridge can get back on track, but they didn’t want to say this explicitly, while the Third Bridge opponents on the council were being careful to not gloat about the bridge being blocked to avoid bad feelings.

Proving that the Salem Bridge Solutions' slogan of Build It Now! was a fantasy, Bennett said that after ten years of working on the development of an Environmental Impact Statement it remains controversial and unresolved. And even if the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was approved tomorrow, he went on to say, it would be ten more years before a bridge could be constructed.

Hence, the need to maximize the use of the current Marion and Center Street bridges.

The No 3rd Bridge folks noted in a Facebook post that Mayor Bennett appears to have embraced one of the alternatives to a new bridge in the draft EIS.

MAYOR BENNETT SUGGESTS CONSIDERATION OF ALTERNATIVE 2AAlternative 2A in the Salem River Crossing Draft Environmental Impact Statement has long been a favorite of many NO 3rd Bridge supporters. It was the only alternative that sought improvement of the existing Marion and Center Street Bridges instead of building a brand new one. It proposed adding three lanes to the two bridges at an estimated cost that was only about a third that of a new bridge. So we were pleased to hear Mayor Bennett make positive mention of it in his remarks tonight. We hope the new task force will dust off Alternative 2A and give it serious consideration.

In a comment on that post an image was shared that shows a plan for the new lanes.

But as Councilor Andersen implies in the video above, the congestion problem really isn't due to a lack of lanes on the existing bridges. A few years ago I asked an engineer working on this project if the problem was the approaches on either side of the river, not the bridges themselves, and he said that was indeed true.

Bennett said that some previous studies concluded that the traffic flow on the existing bridges is maximized, while other studies have shown room for improvement. Andersen, though, rattled off the names of several studies that all pointed to traffic congestion being reduced by improving either the current bridges or the associated streets/approaches.

Regarding the draft Environmental Impact Statement, approval of it is a must if the Salem River Crossing project is to move forward. But this can't happen, since the Land Use Board of Appeals remanded the City Council's approval of an Urban Growth Boundary expansion needed for construction of a new bridge, thereby negating the original approval.

I asked Bob Cortright, an expert in land use matters related to transportation and an opponent of the Third Bridge, if the Urban Growth Boundary expansion had to be accomplished before an Environmental Impact Statement could be approved. Yes, Cortright said, it does.

No, the EIS cannot be finalized without an approved UGB expansion and TSP [Transportation System Plan] amendment. ODOT has an adopted rule that describes how it will plan for projects in a manner that is consistent with state land use laws. In essence, the rule says that ODOT will not issue a final EIS until the local government has amended its comprehensive plan to allow the project to be constructed. In this case, that means that until the UGB is expanded and the 3rd Bridge is included as a "planned" transportation facility in the city's TSP, ODOT may not move [to] finalize the EIS.

(1) The Department shall involve affected cities, counties, metropolitan planning organizations, state and federal agencies, special districts and other interested parties in the development of project plans. The Department shall include planning officials of the affected cities, counties and metropolitan planning organization on the project technical advisory committee.

(2) Goal compliance and plan compatibility shall be analyzed in conjunction with the development of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement or Environmental Assessment. The environmental analysis shall identify and address relevant land use requirements in sufficient detail to support subsequent land use decisions necessary to authorize the project.

(3) Except as otherwise set forth in section (4) of this rule, the Department shall rely on affected cities and counties to make all plan amendments and zone changes necessary to achieve compliance with the statewide planning goals and compatibility with local comprehensive plans after completion of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement or Environmental Assessment and before completion of the Final Environmental Impact Statement or Revised Environmental Assessment. These shall include the adoption of general and specific plan provisions necessary to address applicable statewide planning goals.

So this is why I say the Third Bridge is dead.

It is legally blocked by the negation of the Urban Growth Boundary expansion. And given the current composition of the City Council, there is no way it can be unblocked.

And soon the City Council will be moving forward with ways to reduce rush hour congestion on the two current bridges. Once these are implemented and congestion is reduced, it will be very difficult to justify spending half a billion dollars or more on a new bridge that has no reason for being.

This is great news for Salem. So let's all celebrate in our own ways. Me, I'll be singing Ding, dong, the wicked bridge is dead. (But only in the shower, for reasons that would be apparent to anyone who hears my tone-deaf voice.)

September 09, 2017

Because the Trump administration has a head-in-the-sand approach to global warming, cities like Salem have to help fill the federal void when it comes to the urgent need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Fortunately, today I learned that Salem is making good progress on having a citywide Climate Action Plan -- thanks to the efforts of our local 350.org chapter, 350 Salem OR, and supportive city councilors such as Tom Andersen, Cara Kaser, Sally Cook, Chris Hoy, and Matt Ausec.

This afternoon Andersen spoke at the end of 350 Salem OR's well-attended public meeting at the Library, "A Climate Action Plan for Salem: What Can We Learn From Other Oregon Cities?"

To briefly answer that question, a lot.

Former Eugene Mayor Kitty Piercy and Linda Lovett of the Corvallis Climate Action Task Force each spoke for thirty minutes, providing some great information about how their city councils were able to get on board with a Climate Action Plan. But I'm going to focus on Councilor Andersen's update on how things are going on this front here in Salem.

Andersen correctly noted that in Salem, as elsewhere, there's a "misinformed segment of society" that fails to recognize the reality of climate change.

Because it appears that several conservative members of the Salem City Council are part of this science-denying group, there's a need to tread kind of lightly, word-wise, when it comes to a Climate Action Plan. Thus Andersen noted that a new seventh goal added to the City of Salem Strategic Plan speaks of an "Environmental Action Plan."

Today, in the morning, the Salem City Council had a work session on the Strategic Plan. Andersen told us that some word-smithing resulted in the seventh goal being called "Prepare a community-wide environmental strategy."

But one of the actions under this goal will be "Adopt a Climate Action Plan with emphasis on reducing greenhouse gas emissions." Pleasingly, Andersen said this goal got unanimous support at the city council work session.

Less pleasingly, he added that red, yellow and green stickers were given to members of the city council to indicate how positively they viewed the various goals of the City of Salem Strategic Plan. The Environmental Action Plan goal got five greens, three yellows, and two reds.

It's disturbing that several members of the Salem City Council are so negative about lowering carbon emissions and protecting our one-and-only Earth for human habitation. The good news is that it looks like a majority of the nine City Council members (eight councilors and Mayor Chuck Bennett) support a Climate Action Plan.

Regarding Mayor Bennett, he came to today's 350.org public meeting to introduce Kitty Piercy, then left. The woman who introduced Bennett said that last June he was one of 372 other mayors in the United States who agreed to uphold the Paris Climate Accord after President Trump said he was going to withdraw from it.

That mention got applause from the audience.

However, my take is that Bennett's support for climate action is lukewarm at best. He certainly isn't pushing for a Salem Climate Action Plan, though I suspect Mayor Bennett will vote for it if a majority of the City Council is on board with an Environmental Action Plan.

What's perplexing is how Bennett can commit to upholding the greenhouse gas emission goals of the Paris Accord, yet be so lackluster about a local Climate Action Plan that aims to achieve the same sorts of goals. But, hey, politicians often act in mysterious ways.

And Mayor Bennett is both a politician and a professional lobbyist, so this adds to his potential for mysterious action.

Because City Council support for a Salem Climate Action Plan isn't totally firm, Andersen urged people to come out and support the Environmental Action Plan goal at a September 19 Salem Strategic Plan Open House. Here's the 350 Salem OR handout about this (click to enlarge).

Andersen ended by saying that it is important to involve the whole community in this Salem Climate Plan effort. That view was echoed by Piercy and Lovett in their own remarks. Business support is especially crucial, in part because some people mistakenly believe that economic development is at odds with reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Actually, the opposite is true.

It's impossible to have vibrant economies in a world beset by the negative impacts of global warming. For example, hundreds of billions of dollars is going to be spent on dealing with the aftermath of the two massive hurricanes that have struck our country recently, hurricanes fueled by the warmer ocean waters produced by global warming.

Piercy and Lovett provided lots of information about how Eugene and Corvallis got their city councils, and entire communities, to buy into a Climate Action Plan. Their basic message was....

Keep moving. Keep trying. It isn't easy.

Piercy ended her remarks by telling us:

Every little thing you do on the climate action front is really important. People around the country are watching fires, floods, and other disasters caused (or exacerbated) by global warming. Most people understand human-caused climate change is happening. We can't know where the tipping point is that will lead to marked success in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Be hopeful.

I am. Everybody in the 350 Salem OR meeting today was also.

We just need to match our hope with action. So as noted above, come to the Salem Strategic Plan Open House and let City officials know that you support an Environmental Action Plan,

September 19Broadway Coffee House1300 Broadway Street NE6 to 8 pm

[On a personal note, and please feel free to skip this part, a woman I sat next to at today's meeting told me that she liked my blog posts, and had noted that I haven't been writing many recently. I truthfully told her that life has been busy for me recently. Given the setting, I didn't mention that I've been struggling with some health problems that have been capturing my attention -- due to the anxiety, lack of sleep, and time needed to deal with them.

I just want to let people know that I'm still committed to making Salem a better place and reporting on political goings-on in this town. However, like the saying goes, life happens. Some days I really want to write a blog or Facebook post, but I just don't have the energy and focus that I used to have. On the plus side, I've become a lot more understanding of people who suffer from a chronic medical condition.

I hope mine isn't chronic, but the future is uncertain -- both for me and everyone. I'm into the proverbial "one day at a time" mode. One of my daily goals is to do something positive for my community, or at least my closest loved ones, rather than worry about myself, which I'm unfortunately prone to do. However, some days I'm capable of a long dog walk, yet not a blog post.

I apologize for this addendum, since I really don't want to be known as the old-man-blogger who bores people with his medical problems. I simply have been feeling the need to explain my lack of blogging and Facebooking for the past few months. Again, it isn't because I've lost interest in Salem affairs. I've just been stressed out to such an extent that often I'm unable to do what I really enjoy doing, which I hope to get back to doing again with the same zeal I had before.]

August 03, 2017

Ah, it always feels so good to be proven correct about a local issue I blogged about.

Especially when a local conservative talk show host, KYKN's Gator Gaynor, criticized me for supposedly falsely claiming that a pro-Third Bridge group, Salem Bridge Solutions, had disrupted a recent meeting of the West Salem Neighborhood Association.

The current issue of Salem Weekly has a column by city councilor Tom Andersen about the West Salem Neighborhood Association meeting called "Urging Civility."

Andersen, an attorney, wrote the piece after talking with seven people who were at the meeting, including Councilor Jim Lewis -- who represents West Salem. The column backs up what I said in my blog post, which was based on two reports that were emailed to me from people who also attended the meeting.

Here's what Councilor Andersen said. As he notes, these thoughts were previously shared July 26 on his Facebook page. I doubt that Gator Gaynor will be apologizing to me, but I accept his unspoken apology regardless. Or are you going to call Councilors Andersen and Lewis liars also, Gator?

Urging Civility

A week ago last Monday at the West Salem Neighborhood Association, there were a series of totally inappropriate vocal and physical disturbances instigated by folks who support a new bridge, based primarily on emotions without much critical analysis. It was very disturbing, especially in light of what is happening nationally. I commented on it at length at Monday’s council meeting. I spoke from written notes which are reproduced below. Sorry for the length (especially without pictures!) but this issue is important.

One of the functions of Salem neighborhood associations is to receive and discuss information concerning city projects and proposed projects and to inform the council of the NA’s positions on any given issue, including any differences of opinion. It is expected that any NA discussion shall be civil, respectful, and allow all sides to have their say. Unfortunately this did not happen at last week’s West Salem neighborhood’s meeting.

While I was not there, I have spoken to seven people who were, including Councilor Lewis. While some may disagree as to the rationale for and history behind the actions taken, all agree that the meeting was disruptive, disrespectful and totally antithetical to how neighbors should behave, much less how human beings should behave. The co-chairs of the NA were interrupted, shouted at, talked over, accused of bad faith, had the microphone taken away after the chair had declared the meeting adjourned, and accorded absolutely no respect or civility.

The instigators of the majority of this behavior were persons in favor of the proposed Salem River Crossing, a matter which was not even on the agenda at the meeting, except tangentially with respect to a motion contained in the minutes of the previous meeting. While the NA’s parliamentarian, in an attempt to keep order, did inappropriately shout “sit down” at the people who were disturbing the meeting, he appropriately apologized to them for his actions.

I am certain that the proponents have deep felt and sincere beliefs as to the necessity of the proposed bridge. I believe that they have every right to their beliefs and every right to discuss the situation in a respectful and civil manner. What happened at the meeting is not proper behavior; not behavior that anyone should be proud of, and not behavior that should be repeated in any setting. This is not the type of behavior which should be allowed to pass unnoticed. It must be stopped now.

People, in spite of our differences of opinions, we should all treat others as we would wish to be treated. All sides should discuss city issues on the merits of the issues themselves without resort to ad hominem and personal attacks.

Neighborhood Associations are a microcosm for the issues we face as a community.

• We are all a part of Salem. We are all neighbors.

• Whatever our views, we can agree to disagree.

• We will always strive to be civil in our conversations with our neighbors.

To that end, councilor Lewis and I will be appearing on CCTV later this week to urge people on all sides of any given issue to follow these guidelines and to discuss the high value that the Council places on civic discourse in our community.

February 15, 2017

[Update: I've gotten a message from City Manager Steve Powers that is reassuring. He says that all police facility options are still on the table for the February 21 City Council work session.

Brian,

Thank you for your email. Council has not taken the library and civic center/city hall seismic work out of consideration for a May 2017 bond measure. The action that Council took Monday night was to add for discussion at the February 21 work session an option that would have the City proceed with a ballot measure for a police facility in May followed by a later ballot measure for library and city facilities improvements. The action was taken after discussion under Special Orders of Business, item 5.a., May 16, 2017 Public Safety General Obligation Bond Measure, as shown on the published agenda for the February 13 Council meeting.

Steve Powers

Good news. But at the time I wrote this post, I was operating off of what a City of Salem Facebook post about the February 3 City Council meeting said. This excerpt from the post matched my interpretation of the motion passed by the Council after I left the meeting and later watched the CCTV video.

The City Council voted to separate the police facility and seismic retrofitting of City facilities into two separate issues. They will hold a work session on February 21 to discuss police facility options and which one they might put on the May ballot. They agreed that they will seek to put a seismic upgrade option on the November ballot. The specifics of the potential bond for the November ballot will be decided at a later work session.

This sure made it sound like only police facility options that didn't include seismic retrofitting of Civic Center buildings would be discussed at the February 21 work session. But I'm glad that City officials are interpreting that motion differently. A new bond measure for a police facility will have a greater chance of passing if it includes money to make City Hall and the Library earthquake-safe.]

-----------------

I'm a big believer in open, transparent government. Important policy decisions should be made in the public eye, not behind closed-doors. Citizens should have plenty of opportunity to present testimony about those decisions before they're voted on.

For quite a while this hasn't been happening here in Salem. City Hall is notoriously biased in favor of top-down decision-making where the public only is able to weigh in on decisions that, for all intents and purposes, already have been decided.

So public participation is pretty much a sham.

Here's an annotated video I made of part of last Monday's City Council meeting that shows what I mean. It features a Robert's Rules of Order dance between Mayor Chuck Bennett and Councilor Tom Andersen where the moves seem to have been pre-arranged. Here's how I describe the You Tube video.

I added some annotations to the clip of what happened at the February 13, 2017 City Council meeting where some of the options for a new police facility bond were unexpectedly removed from consideration in advance of a work session on February 21. So the public won't have a chance to testify about these options, which ended being any option that includes making City Hall and the Library earthquake-safe (after Councilor Andersen's motion shown in the video was amended). I find this deeply disturbing, because it goes against the intent of making policy decisions in an open, transparent, public manner.

As background to the above, here's the content of an email that I sent to City officials yesterday.

If City of Salem officials, staff, and councilors wanted to guarantee that there will be strong organized opposition to a new police facility bond measure on the May ballot, the unexpected action of the City Council last night just guaranteed it. Very aggravating.

AGGRAVATING! CITY COUNCIL SAID "NO" TO SEISMIC UPGRADES FOR THE LIBRARY AND CITY HALL AS PART OF A NEW POLICE FACILITY PLAN

I left last night's City Council meeting after testifying in support of a Salem Community Vision plan that would put a proposal on the May ballot to build a new 115,000 square foot police facility AND seismically retrofit both City Hall and the Library for $66 million. Until a few minutes ago I didn't know the Council unexpectedly voted later in the meeting to discard any new police facility plan that includes making City Hall and the Library earthquake-safe.

The video below of the meeting should begin at about the 1:26 mark, which starts off a 25 minute or so discussion. There was no advance notice that last night the City Council would decide to make lifesaving seismic upgrades to the Civic Center buildings a possibility for some future date, rather than leaving this as a viable option for discussion at a February 21 council work session regarding a May police facility bond measure.

My Salem Community Vision colleagues and I will be discussing this disappointing action by the City Council tomorrow.

At the moment, I'm so irked by the Council taking seismic upgrades off the table before citizens had a chance to testify at the February 21 council work session, I'm leaning toward opposing any police facility bond measure on the May ballot that doesn't include money for lifesaving seismic upgrades to the Library and City Hall.

I led the fight against Measure 24-399, the standalone $82 million police facility plan.

Even though we opponents were outspent by about $102,000 to $3,000, voters still rejected that bond measure. One of our best arguments was that it made no sense to move Police Department staff out of a building that would collapse in the Big One earthquake, then move other City employees into the same City Hall space so THEY will be the ones crushed to death.

Along with children at the Library, and other people in that building.

So it looks like I and others who want to see the lives of people in City Hall and the Library saved along with the lives of Police Department staff will have to oppose a new police facility bond measure just as strongly as we did the last one. This would be really unfortunate.

I'd hoped that Salem could come together in a community consensus that a PLAN B for the police facility needs to include lifesaving seismic upgrades for the Library and City Hall. But the City Council just voted to ignore the pleas of citizens to make the Civic Center buildings earthquake-safe at the same time as this is done for a new Police Department headquarters.

Bad decision.

I don't know whether voters will decide to approve a standalone police facility bond in the May election, but the way I feel right now -- deeply irritated and disappointed -- I'll do my best to defeat that bond measure.

Because the lives of everybody who is working at, or visiting, City Hall and the Library when the Big One earthquake hits are at stake. I can't live with myself if I don't fight to save those lives by once again trying to defeat a police facility bond measure that values the safety of Police Department staff over the safety of other citizens.